NIST WTC7 computer animation question
- Thread starter Edx
- Start date
Quick answer, because simulating this kind of thing is incredibly difficult.
If you were to reassemble WTC 7 a hundred times, start exactly the same fires in it each time, and then wait for it to burn out, you would not get the same collapse each time.
Should be no surprise. Suppose you drop a bottle on the concrete. Sometimes it breaks. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just cracks, and sometimes it shatters completely. This is true even if you repeat the conditions as perfectly as you can. The collapse of a large, complex, damaged building is many millions of times more complicated.
This kind of system follows a science called deterministic chaos. Even very small changes in behavior, early on, can lead to visible and seemingly large changes later. Say a weld hangs on for half a second longer than it did last time. Suppose these four bolts don't all let go at the same time. Suppose a column fragment just happens to get wedged between two large pieces and absorbs energy as it flexes, instead of just spearing through the debris.
You can see this effect clearly in the Purdue study of WTC 1 and WTC 2. They ran their simulations dozens of times, making tiny variations in the impact damage, the failure strain of materials, and so on, and found there are quite a few differences between runs. Nobody has bothered to do the same for WTC 7 that I know of, but it certainly could be done. I'd recommend anyone interested contact Dr. Irfanoglu at Purdue and start working on an NSF grant.
Now, having said that, the varying WTC 1 and WTC 2 results do have some features in common -- like the fact that virtually all of them do lead to a collapse. That's what these simulations are for. They aren't intended to make things look exactly right. They're intended to provide some insight into the mechanisms of failure, and to determine whether a given hypothesis is plausible.
And that's all NIST does with WTC 7. Their result did not depend on the exterior collapse simulation. Had this happened in the 1990's, the simulation itself would have been impossible! We wouldn't have simply thrown up our hands and said, "gee, we don't have a fast enough computer, guess we'll never know. Could have been fire, and could have been aliens." Indeed, you could remove that entire chapter of the WTC 7 report and lose almost nothing.
What they did, instead, was to set up two trials with different conditions, and see which one was a better fit to what actually happened. This was a quick way to estimate whether the impact damage had any effect on the collapse. And the answer is, yes, it does -- although they also found it's not likely the collapse would have happened any sooner as a result of that damage. But neither case is a perfect match, nor does it need to be.
Truthers whining about how it "looks different" are following the call to perfection logical fallacy. They arbitrarily decide how perfectly they want things to fit, and then complain when their threshold isn't met. You will note that there is no professional complaint about the fidelity of the WTC 7 simulations. Those who understand the report, and why the sim was run in the first place, also understand that a perfect visual match is not expected nor necessary.
Truthers use "call to perfection" all the time -- show us aircraft debris with serial numbers, they say. Show us a video of the Pentagon impact. Show us the total mass of recovered debris near Shanksville. Well, you don't get to make those demands. If we applied them to the Truthers, they'd be silent forever. To wit: Show us your hypothesis. Show me that you aren't Paul Doherty. Show me that you actually believe the crazy things you're typing on the Internet. Can't do it, can you?
If you were to reassemble WTC 7 a hundred times, start exactly the same fires in it each time, and then wait for it to burn out, you would not get the same collapse each time.
Should be no surprise. Suppose you drop a bottle on the concrete. Sometimes it breaks. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just cracks, and sometimes it shatters completely. This is true even if you repeat the conditions as perfectly as you can. The collapse of a large, complex, damaged building is many millions of times more complicated.
This kind of system follows a science called deterministic chaos. Even very small changes in behavior, early on, can lead to visible and seemingly large changes later. Say a weld hangs on for half a second longer than it did last time. Suppose these four bolts don't all let go at the same time. Suppose a column fragment just happens to get wedged between two large pieces and absorbs energy as it flexes, instead of just spearing through the debris.
You can see this effect clearly in the Purdue study of WTC 1 and WTC 2. They ran their simulations dozens of times, making tiny variations in the impact damage, the failure strain of materials, and so on, and found there are quite a few differences between runs. Nobody has bothered to do the same for WTC 7 that I know of, but it certainly could be done. I'd recommend anyone interested contact Dr. Irfanoglu at Purdue and start working on an NSF grant.
Now, having said that, the varying WTC 1 and WTC 2 results do have some features in common -- like the fact that virtually all of them do lead to a collapse. That's what these simulations are for. They aren't intended to make things look exactly right. They're intended to provide some insight into the mechanisms of failure, and to determine whether a given hypothesis is plausible.
And that's all NIST does with WTC 7. Their result did not depend on the exterior collapse simulation. Had this happened in the 1990's, the simulation itself would have been impossible! We wouldn't have simply thrown up our hands and said, "gee, we don't have a fast enough computer, guess we'll never know. Could have been fire, and could have been aliens." Indeed, you could remove that entire chapter of the WTC 7 report and lose almost nothing.
What they did, instead, was to set up two trials with different conditions, and see which one was a better fit to what actually happened. This was a quick way to estimate whether the impact damage had any effect on the collapse. And the answer is, yes, it does -- although they also found it's not likely the collapse would have happened any sooner as a result of that damage. But neither case is a perfect match, nor does it need to be.
Truthers whining about how it "looks different" are following the call to perfection logical fallacy. They arbitrarily decide how perfectly they want things to fit, and then complain when their threshold isn't met. You will note that there is no professional complaint about the fidelity of the WTC 7 simulations. Those who understand the report, and why the sim was run in the first place, also understand that a perfect visual match is not expected nor necessary.
Truthers use "call to perfection" all the time -- show us aircraft debris with serial numbers, they say. Show us a video of the Pentagon impact. Show us the total mass of recovered debris near Shanksville. Well, you don't get to make those demands. If we applied them to the Truthers, they'd be silent forever. To wit: Show us your hypothesis. Show me that you aren't Paul Doherty. Show me that you actually believe the crazy things you're typing on the Internet. Can't do it, can you?
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
'NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2,
'Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.'
'Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.'
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Uhm, that question was just answered.
Ironically, if the NIST had just faked it, they would've been able to superficially mimic the actual collapse. Truthers don't seem to get irony..
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
More like an opinion was offered.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
What does it matter?
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I just watched a video from a truther claiming they were totally different but in reality only a small part of it was different, I don't know why you claim it looks "nothing" like it.
As alien said why, if it was fake, did they not make it look like just like the collapse? Again we have to believe in incompetent conspiracists
Last edited:
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Very nice post, R. Mackey.
I remember poring through the NIST report and somewhere in there was mentioned that WTC-1 almost didn't collapse; that a non-collapse was plausible because of the position of the jet strike and the fact that it was struck much higher than WTC-2. For WTC-2, the equivalent of a 30-story building had to remain intact above the point of that strike. WTC-1 was about half that, if I recall.
Just that very very simple fact - that WTC-2 was struck later, but fell first - is an enormous blow to any fantasy of a pre-planned, non-aircraft-causation for collapse.
I used to work at Beaudry Center in downtown LA, and that is a 30-story building. You look up at that thing from bottom to top and actually can be amazed that a similar structure managed to remain aloft as long as it did above the point of impact on WTC-2.
I remember poring through the NIST report and somewhere in there was mentioned that WTC-1 almost didn't collapse; that a non-collapse was plausible because of the position of the jet strike and the fact that it was struck much higher than WTC-2. For WTC-2, the equivalent of a 30-story building had to remain intact above the point of that strike. WTC-1 was about half that, if I recall.
Just that very very simple fact - that WTC-2 was struck later, but fell first - is an enormous blow to any fantasy of a pre-planned, non-aircraft-causation for collapse.
I used to work at Beaudry Center in downtown LA, and that is a 30-story building. You look up at that thing from bottom to top and actually can be amazed that a similar structure managed to remain aloft as long as it did above the point of impact on WTC-2.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Because NIST did not model elements of the exterior face. I thought you knew this?
Actually NIST stated that under the minimum impact damage case they studied (treat it as a one-sigma lower bound on damage), the fires would have been expected to burn out and leave the structure standing. Under best-guess and higher damage cases, they predict collapse.
This, of course, assumes those fires didn't continue on higher floors and eventually trigger a minor collapse, one whose kinetics could have finally overcome the remaining strength on the impact floors.
Also, note that NIST is the only serious study that led to this conclusion. As I've noted many times, NIST's is the most optimistic study around. All of the other investigations disagree and think collapse was practically certain, even with less or (speaking to Purdue in particular) with no impact structural damage.
Obviously anything can happen in a crash, and if you tried it enough times eventually you would get a case that didn't collapse, but there's no question that the crash + fire led to the collapse, and that it would be expected to do so. Scientific consensus on these two points is total.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Modeling non-structural elements is, primarily, a waste of time and effort. You simply include the mass effects of non-structural elements, and concentrate your modeling efforts on the important parts.Mackey didn't mention that, any more information on this any why they didn't? I'm sure thats in the report but I'm busy and not a truther claiming its all fake
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Ten-roger, Mack. You wish to living hell it had gone that way - managing to remain standing, for at least two reasons:
1. Many many lives would have been saved.
2. All of us - including the truthers - would have seen an actual controlled demolition bring down the Tower. As deeply damaged as WTC-1 was, I doubt there'd have been any choice other than a CD. Had it somehow withstood the jet strike.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Small addition (that Ryan already knows about, so he can sleep through this post
): University of Edinburgh researcher A.S. Usmani and some colleagues also believe this. Their computer modelings were run without taking into account jet impact damage, and they still managed to demonstrate a collapse just on thermal effects alone. In fact, the only "assumption" made was the failure of the fire suppressive system to either control the fires or even function at all. I also saw a reference to an Arup spokesperson coming out and saying much the same thing (although the close ties between Arup and U of Edinburgh's engineering school would of course lead them to state the same things; Architect can detail what those ties are if he feels like it).
I'm guessing that, given the emphasis on thermal effects with truss SFRM intact, that James Quintiere would also hold this opinion. I do admit, though, that this is just a guess.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I need to read the NIST report segments on egress/evacuation, but: I think there were some sets of victims in that building who simply had no way to get out given the fires, and were also being overcome by the smoke/combustion gasses. So while your wish would've indeed led to more victims surviving, I fear that there still would've been a death count above and beyond the ones directly from the impacts, and also caught directly in the fires.
The part that chills me is the fact that there were a number of people who jumped; had the tower not collapsed, how many would've chosen that path? I can't tell. And I don't really dwell on that, since the actual tragedy was bad enough to encourage me not to think of other ways it could've been tragic.
Of course, anyone knowing more about the egress/evacuations can correct me on that.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Yeahp. We're parallel-thinking on this, ElMondo, because it was the folks who went up top I was thinking about too, initially. I haven't looked at the figures awhile either on the estimate of those others who probably survived the impact and fires - but were trapped somewhere in the building just prior to collapse; stairwells, elevators, damaged rooms or offices without exit, others knocked unconscious and so forth.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No, the question was answered very clearly. It's not Mackey's problem that you don't understand the answer.
Dave
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Heh? Are you saying it was anything but an opinion?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Yes, I am. It's obvious to anyone who isn't idealogically committed to denying the obvious that post #2 contains large amounts of relevant factual information.
Dave
Last edited:
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Hate to break it to you, but an opinion can be fact based or absent of facts, but it's still an opinion.
All Mackey was doing was providing one possible explanation for why the animations do not corellate to visual evidence. It's not gospel, it's simply an opinion, valid or invalid as it may be.
And all your are doing is exposing you don't understand models. And you do it without knowing. What was your opinion? What is your conspiracy theory?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that the NIST model does not corellate to visual evidence. Granted, I'm not a scientist or engineer, but very legitimate questions have been raised regarding NIST's methods and conclusions by reputable scientists.
I think you guys put far too much faith in NIST and their models and assume that this is the best possible analysis that can be done. The sad part is that there is not likely to be any independent organization that will have access to necessary evidence and data to make a competing analysis. On this Mackey is unfortunately correct. There can no longer be any truly exhaustive investigation other than NIST's.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Hogwash. And, in typical truther style, a big claim based on a false assertion coupled with the false inference that it has global application across all of the target statement.
WRONG
There are ten paragraphs in R Mackey's post and most of them do have an element of opinion.
However only in two out of the ten is the matter of opinion the primary claim of the paragraph. (Paras 1 and 7 in case you want to check)
In all the others the primary claim of the paragraph is a matter of either well established fact or fact that can be readily confirmed as to its truth. And that primary fact stands whether or not the secondary bit of tagged on opinion is correct.
And, whilst I am at it, even if some of those claims of fact happen to be false (they aren't), it does not transform them into "opinions".
Don't need NIST to tell me what could happen when I see this. How do you model fire?
LOL, 911 truth is not legitimate! They are liars, failure for 10 years.
Don't need NIST or another study to explain fire destroys; learned that when I was kid. I am an engineer, and I am not surprised you expose your ignorance on models and like to attack NIST. I don't' need NIST, you do, and you can't understand 911, you did not read the NIST report, and it shows.
Too bad you can't explain what R.Mackey said and make a valid critique. Which lies do you support of 911 truth, they have no legitimate questions, and they have no reputable scientists on 911 issues to support their claims.
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 10,906
And those legitimate questions from reputable scientists still point to the fact that fire was the main culprit, correct? Those reputable scientists also think any type of explosives used to bring down the towers is pure hogwash, correct?
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
But its different if they say that NIST was wrong for some tiny minor reason vs truthers saying that its a complete fraud and steel buildings are impervious to fire and cannot collapse and everyone knows NISTs theory goes against the laws of physics.
What reputable scientists say stuff like that?
Once again, Edx asked a question, and that question is answered. Thread has served its purpose. That purpose is not for Truthers to engage in unbridled sophistry or semantic argument, all with the sole aim of being argumentative. Ignore is your friend.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
911 truth has no legitimate questions. They have beam weapons, nukes and delusions of explosives, nano-thermite, and other insane claims.
Fire did it, what did it in your fantasy? What was your point?
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Stop misrepresenting what I said!
Dr Q's points about NIST are certainly not minor on an engineering level, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about them being minor and subtle compared with truthers. When will you realise that he promotes something thats even further away from what you believe? His study validated NISTs conclusions, only in minor and subtle ways did it differ compared with truthers. It is impossible for a truther to argue that NIST are a bunch of liars while Dr. Q is not.The ways in which Dr. Q disagree's truthers would consider even more ridiculous. And if Dr. Q is lying, then why did he say all these nice quotes for you to mine? The only option is for you to claim he is incompetent if you don't want to say he is lying, but you won't want to do that because then why does his opinion about NIST matter if he is so incompetent he believes something even further away from what truthers think?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Good grief, not this again. Quintiere and NIST are arguing about whether it's a Labrador or a German Shepherd, and RedIbis claims that this supports his theory that it's an eleven-legged unicorn.
Dave
Dave
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I was trying to think of a simile analogy to this and you nailed it.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Hate to be technical, but the towers did survive the strikes...it was the aftermath that brought them down...